franchises! : Tue Apr 28, 2009 1:15 pm  

if we are to follow the australian model, after 3 years franchises will be up for grabs. i australia they are talking about moving the sharks lock stock and barrell out of sydney rather like they did with the LA rams in the USA.

DOES THIS MEAN IN THEORY

that if finances at say wigan were in a situation where some one were able to buy them out and move them to say workington, would they become the workington warriors.

i see this working in America but not in this country

OR

if some one does not meet the criteria for a franchise in 3 years for example saints don't have a ground up to scratch do say leigh apply for the franchise rights?

i'm a tad confused.....any one help me out?

it's all very confusing

bring back religation and promotion i say!

: Tue Apr 28, 2009 1:17 pm  

With even more delays to Salford's new stadium, I say move them to Cumbria. Failing that, rename them Manchester, move them into a better stadium and use the name Manchester to generate more publicity.

: Tue Apr 28, 2009 1:21 pm  

If Saints still dont have a new stadium in 2 years time they will still get a licence.

The RFL are a bunch of weak incompetent fools who couldn't organise a jolly up in a brewery.

Visionaries my backside

: Tue Apr 28, 2009 1:23 pm  

Tones Tackle wrote:

If Saints still dont have a new stadium in 2 years time they will still get a licence.

The RFL are a bunch of weak incompetent fools who couldn't organise a jolly up in a brewery.

Visionaries my backside

Saints will be the first into a new stadium I think.

Salford and Castleford are doing nothing but blowing hot air and to be honest, I'd prefer to see Widnes and someone else given their spots in 2012

: Tue Apr 28, 2009 1:23 pm  

Sounds like there has been another significant set back for Salford. Not looking good at all.

: Tue Apr 28, 2009 1:24 pm  

Tones Tackle wrote:

If Saints still dont have a new stadium in 2 years time they will still get a licence.

The RFL are a bunch of weak incompetent fools who couldn't organise a jolly up in a brewery.

Visionaries my backside

still doesn't answer my questions though

: Tue Apr 28, 2009 1:27 pm  

slimwire66 wrote:

still doesn't answer my questions though

i think, yes, in theory, if someone bought a team, they could move it where they want, just like they do in America (wasn't it the Texas Oilers who upped and left to the East coast somewhere).

: Tue Apr 28, 2009 1:35 pm  

slimwire66 wrote:

still doesn't answer my questions though

you still havent answered mine about that god awful rumour you started on saturday Slim.

: Tue Apr 28, 2009 1:39 pm  

Tones Tackle wrote:

If Saints still dont have a new stadium in 2 years time they will still get a licence.

The RFL are a bunch of weak incompetent fools who couldn't organise a jolly up in a brewery.

Visionaries my backside

Don't agree that clubs should have to build an identikit Ikea flatpack stadium like ours to survive in Super League, especially if they have other things going for them.

Saints are one of the biggest clubs in Super League, why would they not be given a franchaise?

IMO, rightly or wrongly Castleford or Wakefield will not get a franchaise next time around with either Widnes or Tolouse to replace them.

: Tue Apr 28, 2009 1:39 pm  

with the exception of the MK dons in football i can't think of any other sport or team in this country doing the same, mergers ie, hull and gateshead & sheffield and huddersfield were a bit different.

is it the name that's franchised..ie the wolves, bulls & warriors?

can you picture it widnes buy saints' franchise rights would they become the widnes saints?

the batley warriors!

amsterdam city reds?